Some reflections by Dr. Laurence W. Wood
11-8-89

1. Baptism “incorporates” the believer into the church (I Cor. 12:12-13; Acts 2:41).

2. Baptism is linked to the death-resurrection of Jesus (Romans 6:1-4) and signifies forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).

3. Baptism is not sacramental in itself apart from faith and obedience to Christ (I Cor. 10:1-13)

4. Paul indicates that baptism is a counterpart to Jewish circumcision (Col. 2:10-13). This connection was assumed by the early Church writers and universally accepted throughout the Church tradition until the Modern Period. (Oscar Cullmann in “Baptism in the New Testament” offers a biblical defense of this connection and shows that the weight of evidence is clearly in favor of the long-standing tradition of the Church.

5. Paul allows that children are “in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1) and this would imply their baptism and incorporation into the Church. Frequently in the New Testament the Church is denoted propositionally, such as being “in Christ” (cf. Ephesians 2:11-22). If children are not “in the Lord,” then they are heathen. But if they are “in Christ” and are members of his Church, then baptism is their rite of entrance even as it is for adult converts. For the covenant which God has made with His people “in Christ” includes their children even as God’s covenant with Abraham included his whole household, including “eight-day-old infants” (Genesis 17: 9-14).

6. “Households” were baptized. The contemporary use of this term always included children, slaves, and women (Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; I Cor. 1:16).

7. Christian baptism has its background within Judaism. Baptism was a term used in the Old Testament to indicate the practice of washing according to the Mosical laws of purification (Ex. 30:17-21; cf. Mark 7:4 where baptismos is used in reference to the Old Testament practice of ceremonial washings; cf. Titus 3:5-6 where Paul speaks of the “washing (loutron) of regeneration” and associates baptism with the Old Testament imagery of “pouring,” not immersion.

A. The imagery of sprinkling (Psalm 51:7; Numbers 8:7; 19:18), pouring (Lev. 8:12; 21:10), and dipping (II Kings 5:14) were used interchangeably in the Old Testament to symbolize spiritual washing and purification; however, “sprinkling” is used more often as a symbol of washing than either pouring or dipping (immersion).

B. By the first century A.D. the Jews practiced proselyte baptism, though this is a practice, which probably extends to a much earlier period of Jewish history. At a later time (300 A.D.) this practice of proselytism also included infant baptism (see Gemara Babylon Chetuboth c. 1. fol. 11, cited in W. Wall, “A History of Infant-Baptism” (London: Joseph Downing, 1707), p. XLIX), but this practice probably was developed much earlier and was a part of the original baptismal rite of proselytism (see “A History of Infant-Baptism”, p. XLIX).

8. A conceptual parallel to water baptism is spiritual baptism which was promised to whole households. For example, see Joel 2:28-29 which Peter quotes in his Pentecostal sermon: “I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even upon the menservants and maidservants in those days, I will pour out my spirit.” Notice this promise of the “pouring out” of the Spirit was made to whole households, including sons, daughters, and servants. If spiritual baptism was to whole households, why not water baptism? Indeed we have instances where “whole households” did receive water baptism. For example, the Philippian jailer and his household: “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds (Paul and Silas), and he was baptized at once with all his family” (Acts 16:33).

9. Infant baptism is a tradition, which dates back to apostolic times.

A. Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, testified at his martyrdom, “Eighty and six years have I served him” (“Martyrdom of Polycarp” 9). This confession implies his incorporation into the church at infancy around 69 A.D. For baptism was always thought of as the incorporating event into the Church.

B. Justin Martyr (born about the time John died in 100 A.D.) said: “And many, both men and women, who have been Christ’s disciples from infancy/childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years” (“First Apology” XV). In his “Dialogue with Trypho” (Chapter XLIII), he shows that baptism replaced the Jewish rite of circumcision, thus indicating that the privilege of Christian parents included their children being incorporated into the church even as Jewish parents had the same privilege for their children.

C. Polycrates (at the end of the 2nd Century A.D.) said that he lived “in the Lord” for sixty-five years, indicating that he had been a Christian since his birth. He came from a long line of believers and referred to himself being the eighth bishop (Eusebius, “An Ecclesiastical History”, V. XXIV. 6-7).

D. Tertullian (c. 150-225) was born in Carthage, converted to Christianity around 190 to 195 A.D., and was an apologist/theologian. He believed in baptismal regeneration. And he took baptism most seriously because it washes away sins and incorporates one into the Church. Because of the seriousness of baptism, Tertullian urged that in some cases that it be delayed until the person is fully prepared to take on the life of a believer. Two instances where he recommended that it might be delayed involved infants and unmarried people. However, he did not recommend that it be delayed in every case for infants or unmarried people. Presumably if these persons were facing death, then baptism should be administered. But his general rule was that it was better to delay than to rush into baptism—until one was sure that he/she could be faithful to its meaning. In any case, Tertullian did not deny the validity of infant baptism, nor did he argue against it on biblical grounds. And it is significant that he did not argue against it on the basis of tradition. His only consideration in recommending that in some cases it be delayed was that the person needs to have a favorable situation for being able to live out the meaning of baptism. Tertullian was a powerful writer. He was a persuasively with clear reasoning. He was converted to Christianity out of a well-to-do heathen background around 190 to 195. If he had objected to infant baptism for theological and biblical reasons, he would have been quite explicit about his reasons. Instead, his recommendation against baptism for infants and unmarried people were practical. Tertullian’s negative comment about infant baptism has often been exaggerated with such statements that he “deplored” it as if he objected strenuously to its practice. Such is not the case if one will read his comments in “On Baptism” (XVIII). He no more “deplored” infant baptism that he did the baptism of unmarried people, though he generally urged its delay in these two situations.

E. Cyprian was bishop of Carthage (c. 200 – c. 258) and referred to Tertullian as “master.” He called a council of sixty-one bishops in 254 A.D. to decide the question whether infants should be baptized on the eighth day after birth (even as infants were circumcised on the eighth day after birth according to the ancient Jewish rite). Cyprian called this council because Fidus, an African bishop, had placed the question before him. This council of sixty-one bishops unanimously said there was no reason to wait until the eighth day. Rather, the child may be baptized on the day of birth (“The Epistles of Cyprian”, Epistle LVIII).

F. Augustine says “the whole church” practices infant baptism. He says it was not instituted by councils, but was always practiced since apostolic times. (“On Baptism”, Bk. IV, Chapter 24, 32; see also his “The Literal Meaning of Genesis”, Bk. X, Chapter 23.39). In his dispute with the Pelagians (310 A.D.), Augustine disagreed with their interpretation of the meaning of infant baptism, pointing out that he had never heard or read where any Christian (whether Catholic or heretic) had ever dissociated baptism from regeneration just as had never heard or read where any Christian had ever denied the validity of infant baptism. (“St. Augustine Against the Pelagians”, Chapter XIX, par. 17). Incidentally, Augustine certainly knew and read Tertullian’s writings. Tertullian was the first great Latin theologian, Cyprian was the second Latin theologian, and Augustine was the third Latin theologian. Augustine had some points of disagreement with Tertullian, but he did not accuse Tertullian of denying the validity of infant baptism. Rather, Augustine says on several occasions that infant baptism is a firmly established tradition dating from the times of the apostles (a point which none questioned) and he says no one questions its practice—and apparently not even Tertullian.

G. In the twelfth century infant baptism was rejected by few of the Waldenses who considered infants damned because they were incapable of salvation (see Wall, “A History of Infant-Baptism”).

H. The Anabaptist movement initiated by Balthasar Hubmaier in the sixteenth century doubted the validity of infant baptism because the Scriptures did not give an explicit command for its practice. Such an interpretation of Scripture ignored the theological reasoning behind the practice of infant baptism as well as sixteen centuries of its practice in the life of the church since apostolic times. Such an interpretation assumes a narrow proof-texting use of Scripture for doing theology.

10. Though the New Testament does not argue for infant baptism, it does not argue against it. Surely if Jesus or the apostles had intended to abridge the privileges of Jewish parents who under the Abrahamic covenant included their children as part of the congregation of Israel, then such a command would have been issued. Otherwise it was only natural to assume that infant baptism would be practice under the New Covenant since baptism was the rite of initiation into the church, even as circumcision was the Jewish rite of initiation into the congregation of Israel. Otherwise, infants would have to be considered heathen. Besides, it should be remembered that the converts to Jesus Christ recorded in the Book of Acts were first-generation Christians—except that we are told some households were converted which undoubtedly included children. This unique missionary situation of the first Christians would mean that “adult” baptisms in the Book of Acts would be prominent, but this is not an effective argument against infant baptism since “adults” were obviously the ones who needed to be evangelized since there were no “Christian” parents until the Christian message had been received into the world. Oscar Cullmann makes this interesting observation: “Those who dispute the Biblical character of infant baptism have therefore to reckon with the fact that adult baptism for sons and daughters born of Christian parents, which they recommend, is even worse attested by the New Testament than infant baptism (for which certain possible traces are discoverable) and indeed lacks any kind of proof” (“Baptism in the New Testament”, p. 26). In other words, there is not a single instance in the New Testament where any teenage or adult son or daughter of Christian parents was ever baptized! His point is simply that the silence of the New Testament about infant baptism is not an argument against it.

11. If one uses a proof-texting approach, then there are many, many things which we as Christians have no basis for believing. Where in Scripture are we told that Jesus is truly God and truly man in one person with two wills? Where in Scripture are we told that God is, three Eternal Persons, with one essence? The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation and trinity is based on theological reasoning on the whole context of Scripture. Where in Scripture are we told that Sunday explicitly is to replace Saturday as the day of worship? Yet this is a traditional, which clearly dates back to apostolic times and is done for good theological reasons. The New Testament is in an important sense a qualified continuation of the Old Testament. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the New Testament equivalent of the Exodus event. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost signified the internalizing of the kingdom of God first situated in the Canaan Land, the place of God’s abode. The Passover Feast was a prototype of the Lord’s Supper. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament Congregation of Israel. Circumcision was the Jewish rite of initiation into the Congregation of Israel even as baptism is in the New Testament. Why shouldn’t Christian parents then baptized their infant children even as ancient Israel practiced infant circumcision? The parallel between infant circumcision and infant baptism is so obvious and perfect! To deny this parallel is to deny that the New Covenant has any relationship to the Old Covenant. In fact, it would be inaccurate to refer to a “New” covenant at all if the relationship to the “Old” covenant is denied! But in fact the Old Testament was received into the Christian Canon as authoritative because it prepared the way for the coming of Christ. A proof-texting use of Scripture is thus not adequate. Nor are the Scriptures intended to be a systematic handbook of doctrinal formulations. Doctrinal formulations are important for us who have been brought up in the Western civilization and taught to think logically and systematically by the Greeks, and within just a few years of the spread of the Christian message the vast majority of the Church was made up of Greeks. And so doctrinal formulations were inevitable as became evident in the writings of the early Christian apologists! But doctrinal formulation is more than just proof-texting! Proof-texting is the fundamentalist approach to trying to find isolated verses of Scripture, which supposedly will state explicitly and literally what we are supposed to believe as true doctrine. The proof-texting person is one who forgets he/she is a Greek/Western thinking person. And they interpret the Scriptures as if, the biblical writers were written by Greek logicians who intended to write a doctrinal textbook. But this will not do for us because, the Scriptures were not written by those who were taught by Aristotle to think in such logical and analytical terms. The Scriptures are not philosophical treatises (though they certainly are not anti-philosophical); rather, they are largely testimonies of faith, with a pastoral’s orientation. They tell of things, which God has really done in the world in order to reveal Himself. Their way of thinking is holistic, concrete, and experiential rather than piecemeal, abstract, and metaphysical. Because we in the “Christian” West are largely the product of both the Greek and the Jewish background, we cannot make a choice between the two ways of thinking. We are both Greeks and Jews at the same time! We insist on the priority of the history of salvation, but then find it necessary to explain this history in theological-philosophical categories. The proof-texting approach ignores this paradoxical situation and tries to interpret the various texts of Scripture with a kind of literalism, which exceeds the logical rules of even Aristotelian philosophy. But biblical hermeneutics is more than a skillful and analytical dissecting of isolated texts; it is the art of seeing behind the words and discovering (intuiting) the depth of meaning; it is experiencing the whole context of meaning beyond the mere isolated text. This is why Wesley insisted on interpreting the Scriptures as a single whole, but even so he believed that a true interpretation of Scripture was to be achieved only through the proper use of tradition, reason, and experience. The context for achieving a true interpretation of God’s revelation is the whole Bible from the perspective of the whole tradition and experience of the Church, not just isolated proof texts. (See Wesley’s “Advice to Clergy”, Works 6:315).

12. Infant baptism has received numerous interpretations concerning what it means for the infant. Some believe that it releases the infant from the quilt of original sin. Some believe that it thus really regenerates the infant and creates within the child a new capacity for living out the Christian life. Perhaps we can never be sure what is true in this matter. The same problem emerges when we ask what happens in adult baptism. Some believe baptism truly regenerates. Others think it is the public sign of God’s grace, which has already been experienced in the heart of the believer. However, it is generally agreed (1) that baptism (whether infant or adult baptism) initiates on formally into the Church of Jesus Christ and (2) that the potential and promise of what it means to be a Christian is truly available for the person to appropriate for themselves in the due course of time. In this sense, baptism is both a sign and a seal. It is a sign to everyone of the grace, which we are experiencing in Christ; it is a seal (an imprinting) of that grace in our hearts. It is a “sign” and not magic; it is a “seal” and not a mere ceremony. Some-thing really happens in baptism, for it is a means of grace. As it is true with all the means of grace, “how” grace is experienced through baptism is a mystery!

13. An individualistic-baptistic theology rejects infant baptism on the grounds that the person has no self-awareness of the event.

A. This is a new objection which first emerged in the Modern Period. John Lawson says in “Introduction to Christian Doctrine” (p. 171): “It is significant that the objection voiced against the custom by some in the ancient Church was not the modern one that the baptism of an infant does not mean anything, because ‘the baby does not know what is happening.’ This is the mentality of modern individualism. The objection rather was that infant baptism meant too much! It was felt to be unfair to place upon the infant the heavy Christian responsibility of living from the days of early youth a life substantially free from serious moral fault.”

B. Perhaps infants are more cognitively aware than we allow. Recent brain research has demonstrated this fact. (See my article, “Recent Brain Research and the Mind-Body Dilemma” in “The Asbury Theological Journal”, volume 41, no. 1 (Spring 1986), pp. 37-78.

C. Is God’s grace limited to our self-awareness? Eight-day old Israelites were not aware of their circumcision as their point of formal entrance into the congregation of Israel. Nor were they re-circumcised later to make their faith more personal. So then why should infant baptism be delayed under the New Covenant?

D. Infant baptism is a child’s entrance into the church through a decision responsibly made by Christian parents. Parents are often responsible for making many decisions for their children. The Scriptures command parents to be responsible for the spiritual life of their children (Deut. 6:1ff). The concept to “obey our parents in the Lord” shows that children are “in the Lord” (=the church) and that parents are responsible to train their children in spiritual matters (Exodus 12:5 and Ephesians 6:1).

E. The first year of a child’s life is its most important year for its future development as a person. Frank Lake, the English Christian psychiatrist/theologian, explains why infant baptism is so important during this first year: “My conviction is that the baptism of the children of Christian parents expresses the truth of the covenanted grace of God to families. This concept runs clearly through the Old and New Testaments. Vastly important events, fraught with serious and often permanent consequences, are making their impression on the infant. If we are concerned as parents and citizens for the mental health of children, this is their decisive mental health year. Faith and trust in the universe are never more sorely tried that in this first year of life. Never is there more need of supernatural assistance. The fact that this year is pre-verbal and dependent of symbolic thinking does not make it any less formative for faith or unbelief. Nor is baptism less important because it must be understood by the parents who bring the baby, rather than by the baby itself… It is all to easy for adults to imagine that the first year is impersonal, or sub-personal. Too readily we assume that the important years, religiously, begin with the acquisition of speech. No graver mistake could be made. The pristine impressions, which are fundamental to characteristic, are already embedded in the personality before the powers of speech have formed the first sentence. The Church is, in effect, saying, ‘You may not, as parents, realize that this small bundle of needs in your arms is already at six weeks old or so, desiring to become a person. Whether or not you can understand the full force of what you are now bidden to do, in the Name of God, we, the pastor and congregation of Christ’s Church, bid you treat this small creature, from now on, as a person.’’’ (“Clinical Theology”, pp. 800-801).

F. The emphasis upon a so-called believer’s baptism as the only legitimate baptism is associated with the claim that immersion is the only mode of baptism and that pouring and sprinkling are unscriptural. (See my essay entitled, “Sprinkling—the Preferred Mode of Baptism”). John Lawson in “Introduction to Christian Doctrine” writes: “There is, however, no necessary connection between believer’s baptism and total immersion. The ancient Church often practiced the immersion of infants, and the Orthodox, or Eastern, Church still does, while believer’s baptism by sprinkling or pouring also used.” (p. 169).

14. Re-baptism is not an option. There is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). Re-baptism is a denial of the validity of the meaning of baptism itself; namely that the once-for-all event of Christ’s death-resurrection has occurred for the believer. Jesus died and rose only “once.” To be re-baptized is a denial of this once-for-all-ness. Holy communion is an ongoing participation in the benefits of Jesus’ death-resurrection, but baptism is the once-for-all initiation event into the Church. Re-baptism implies a mythical-cyclical concept of history-time prevalent among the mystery religions whose gods are always “dying and rising.” Jesus died once-for-all, and rose once-for-all. Re-baptism is possible only if the first was not considered valid (cf. Acts 19: 1-3). In this case, it would not really be a re-baptism, but baptism. On the other hand, the baptized person may fall into sin and fall away from the church, and he may need to repent and to be restored. But the promise and potential of grace offered to him/her in baptism remains intact and no further act of re-baptism is necessary.